That doesn't pass the sniff test. Where is the regulation that outlaws a 600m+ building? What's magical about 600 metres?

The FAA and FCC have input on anything over 610m, and the zoning laws apply the floor-to-air ratio formula, but that doesn't prevent buildings over 600m from being built.

When you have a set of fluid requirements there's no such thing as an absolute prohibition.

The FAA will probably have concerns over LGA flight paths more than anything. Regarding zoning, the amount of necessary air rights mechanisms as well as the costs associated with it to achieve that height would be absurd. It's not so much forbidden as it is prohibitive and not viable after a certain point. Invariably this is guesswork since so much is site- and cost-dependent and none of us have enough information. Add to that general NIMBYism (think of the Tower Verre saga), and I just can't see it happening.

The main determinant is really market demand, which for the forseeable future will stall any office or residential building of that height in its tracks. One Vanderbilt only has one tenant, while Hudson Yards and Manhattan West have cannibalized the Midtown office market. Over the longer term, general shifts in space occupancy will be hitting Manhattan hard since it's exposed to downsizing and consolidating industries, even those that are growing in terms of employment (finance, consulting, law). Midtown is about to have a glut of space along Park, 6th and 3rd Avenues due to relocations to Hudson Yards on top of that. To get to 600m in a commercial property, even if not wholly office, would require a set of conditions unlikely over the next few cycles. The luxury residential market is also near saturation and increasingly favors slimmer properties to maximize viewspace and distance from other towers at similar heights and unless zoning changes, there isn't the incentive for the 800+ units that would need to fit for something of this scale (this was a lost opportunity with the Midtown East rezoning and REBNY complained about it).

One other factor would be getting a plot large enough to even support a building of that size. Where would it go? The core of Midtown is built out, so the cost of property acquisition and partial or complete demolition would be immense. Hudson Yards is pretty far out and will have issues accommodating that level of demand in terms of infrastructure down the road and Downtown plots are too small. Long Island City is too close to LGA and Downtown Brooklyn has similarly small lots.

As I thought. Everything is subject to factors, but to be subject is not the same as having a hard limit. Making statements that buildings of a height X will not or cannot be built is an exercise in subjective silliness, as is attempting to be a market oracle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoking66

The FAA will probably have concerns over LGA flight paths more than anything. Regarding zoning, the amount of necessary air rights mechanisms as well as the costs associated with it to achieve that height would be absurd. It's not so much forbidden as it is prohibitive and not viable after a certain point. Invariably this is guesswork since so much is site- and cost-dependent and none of us have enough information. Add to that general NIMBYism (think of the Tower Verre saga), and I just can't see it happening.

The main determinant is really market demand, which for the forseeable future will stall any office or residential building of that height in its tracks. One Vanderbilt only has one tenant, while Hudson Yards and Manhattan West have cannibalized the Midtown office market. Over the longer term, general shifts in space occupancy will be hitting Manhattan hard since it's exposed to downsizing and consolidating industries, even those that are growing in terms of employment (finance, consulting, law). Midtown is about to have a glut of space along Park, 6th and 3rd Avenues due to relocations to Hudson Yards on top of that. To get to 600m in a commercial property, even if not wholly office, would require a set of conditions unlikely over the next few cycles. The luxury residential market is also near saturation and increasingly favors slimmer properties to maximize viewspace and distance from other towers at similar heights and unless zoning changes, there isn't the incentive for the 800+ units that would need to fit for something of this scale (this was a lost opportunity with the Midtown East rezoning and REBNY complained about it).

One other factor would be getting a plot large enough to even support a building of that size. Where would it go? The core of Midtown is built out, so the cost of property acquisition and partial or complete demolition would be immense. Hudson Yards is pretty far out and will have issues accommodating that level of demand in terms of infrastructure down the road and Downtown plots are too small. Long Island City is too close to LGA and Downtown Brooklyn has similarly small lots.

Regardless, this is off-topic.

__________________"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke

As I thought. Everything is subject to factors, but to be subject is not the same as having a hard limit. Making statements that buildings of a height X will not or cannot be built is an exercise in subjective silliness, as is attempting to be a market oracle.

Yeah I agree. Making bold predictions about the market is silly and arrogant even if it looks that way now. Plenty of people say "it will never be built" and they were wrong. NY has often surprised many people. Countless top economists and analytics have been off. This has happened in the past countless times. That is why I never listen to such folks. In the 70's the Port Authority predicted NYC aviation would have 200 million people by the year 2000 or something, it didn't come close. Never trust far out projections.

Then again, I do think that unlike in China and Dubai, the megatall towers will have a harder time being built unless the need is there which may indeed be a while. NYC seems to have out grown it's need to build tall for prestige reasons alone. And, In my opinion, NYC doesn't really need it. NYC needs better to focus on better design first and tall buildings second because frankly many of its towers are cookie cutter boxes!!!! Those towers in Dubai and Saudi, etc. are definitely for prestige reasons first and city pride -- you don't need 1000m tall towers in the middle of the desert obviously unless your trying to make a statement. NYC needs to run out of space for it to happen most probably, because prestige towers is not something NYC does anymore and NYC hardly needs to attract the attention of the world. Basically, NY is a mature city there needs to be a market for anything they build now.

A mega tall tower could for example go where MSG is today. If they can get MSG to move someday (i don't know where), there are enormous air rights there to be used over the station. Getting MSG to move though is hard because the Farley site is spoken for now, and the self-serving Dolan doesn't want to move away from the station.

You raise an interesting point about mature cities that I've often considered, that they perhaps need to evolve differently than they did previously. And exploiting a zone that's past its use-by date is one way to get the land needed for a megatall. Also, we should keep in mind that regular and large variances are made to zoning laws and developers often come up with creative solutions hitherto unexplored.

Agree about the Dubai, et al. structures being stunts. In cities like NYC, to build big, or to build anything, there needs to be a powerful economic rationale, usually based heavily in land prices. So you go up, and up. In Dubai there's no such imperative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnDee

Yeah I agree. Making bold predictions about the market is silly and arrogant even if it looks that way now. Plenty of people say "it will never be built" and they were wrong. NY has often surprised many people. Countless top economists and analytics have been off. This has happened in the past countless times. That is why I never listen to such folks. In the 70's the Port Authority predicted NYC aviation would have 200 million people by the year 2000 or something, it didn't come close. Never trust far out projections.

Then again, I do think that unlike in China and Dubai, the megatall towers will have a harder time being built unless the need is there which may indeed be a while. NYC seems to have out grown it's need to build tall for prestige reasons alone. And, In my opinion, NYC doesn't really need it. NYC needs better to focus on better design first and tall buildings second because frankly many of its towers are cookie cutter boxes!!!! Those towers in Dubai and Saudi, etc. are definitely for prestige reasons first and city pride -- you don't need 1000m tall towers in the middle of the desert obviously unless your trying to make a statement. NYC needs to run out of space for it to happen most probably, because prestige towers is not something NYC does anymore and NYC hardly needs to attract the attention of the world. Basically, NY is a mature city there needs to be a market for anything they build now.

A mega tall tower could for example go where MSG is today. If they can get MSG to move someday (i don't know where), there are enormous air rights there to be used over the station. Getting MSG to move though is hard because the Farley site is spoken for now, and the self-serving Dolan doesn't want to move away from the station.

__________________"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke

Yes and there's no demand for it anyway. Air rights, zoning and FAA regulations would all prohibit it, as would property market conditions.

Market demand controls development in US. This isn't true in Middle East and China where empty status towers are built only to pretend they have overtaken the nation that invented the skyscraper. Sorry not impressed. Especially when they keep catching on fire.

Market demand controls development in US. This isn't true in Middle East and China where empty status towers are built only to pretend they have overtaken the nation that invented the skyscraper. Sorry not impressed. Especially when they keep catching on fire.

Speak for Dubai maybe but Chinese skyscrapers I don't see unoccupied or as a status symbol, well myb the latter but with a population of over a billion ppl and about 80% of that population living in urban areas the demand for buildings is pretty high

Design wise China and Dubai get really nice looking buildings but they're designed by American firms. Its strange that most American skyscrapers are boxes but there are a few exceptions like one 57.

Those towers would be far more expensive to be built in USA, that is why you see more basic designs. NYC also has much higher land costs for example than China or Dubai probably. Costs matter, not the architecture firm.

I think than there is again a trend to make buildings to stand out, even in New York.

Looking at the list of the 100 tallest buildings in New York I found out that 15 of them where built before 1940, 48 were built from 1960 through 1999 and 37 were built from 2000 (including some buildings still in construction but structurally topped out) Fun fact, in the decades of 1940 and 1950 not even one building was built that make to the 100 tallest ranking, so, the NY skyline was virtually unaltered for almost 30 years, because the last tall towers were built during the first years of the 30's.

But looking only to the 50 tallest,8 were built before 1940, only 18 in the rest of the 20th century and 24 in the 21st century. Of the ranking of buildings from the 51st tallest to the 100th tallest, 7 were built before 1940, 30 from 1960 to 199 and 13 on the 21st century.

The tallest building built in the second half of the 20th century, excluding the twin towers, was Citicorp Center, currently on 13th place. That buildings, the Twin Towers and some others such as PanAm Buildings or Chase Manhattan, were of the few towers built during that time designed to somehow standout, while the skyscrapers built at the begining of the century, all were built to stand out. Particularly the skyscrapers of the 60's and 70's were built just as a real estate enterprise. but after 1980, you begin to see more buildings with designs to differenciate themselves from others.

And in the 21st century that exacerbates. You began to see buildings like Bofa Tower, that again is designed with some vanity height. Then you have the residential supertalls, all made to make them as tall as possible, I think not just because the wiews from them, but the views to them, they want to have their space in the skyline. Also this building and 30HY, are build with the will to be tall. But not so much to put NY in the map of the world, that doesn't need it, butfor the buildings to be in the map of New York. So I think NY is very much building prestige towers again, but not for the exterior world, but for inside New York, with a very competitive real state market, they need to satand out. Also, having an apartment in one of those supertalls, is a signal of status. For Hudson Yards, they needed a signature tower, to put that place in the map of New York. One Vanderbilt is also one of that towers that is built with the intention of having a premier place in the skyline.

I think than there is again a trend to make buildings to stand out, even in New York.

Looking at the list of the 100 tallest buildings in New York I found out that 15 of them where built before 1940, 48 were built from 1960 through 1999 and 37 were built from 2000 (including some buildings still in construction but structurally topped out) Fun fact, in the decades of 1940 and 1950 not even one building was built that make to the 100 tallest ranking, so, the NY skyline was virtually unaltered for almost 30 years, because the last tall towers were built during the first years of the 30's.

But looking only to the 50 tallest,8 were built before 1940, only 18 in the rest of the 20th century and 24 in the 21st century. Of the ranking of buildings from the 51st tallest to the 100th tallest, 7 were built before 1940, 30 from 1960 to 199 and 13 on the 21st century.

The tallest building built in the second half of the 20th century, excluding the twin towers, was Citicorp Center, currently on 13th place. That buildings, the Twin Towers and some others such as PanAm Buildings or Chase Manhattan, were of the few towers built during that time designed to somehow standout, while the skyscrapers built at the begining of the century, all were built to stand out. Particularly the skyscrapers of the 60's and 70's were built just as a real estate enterprise. but after 1980, you begin to see more buildings with designs to differenciate themselves from others.

And in the 21st century that exacerbates. You began to see buildings like Bofa Tower, that again is designed with some vanity height. Then you have the residential supertalls, all made to make them as tall as possible, I think not just because the wiews from them, but the views to them, they want to have their space in the skyline. Also this building and 30HY, are build with the will to be tall. But not so much to put NY in the map of the world, that doesn't need it, butfor the buildings to be in the map of New York. So I think NY is very much building prestige towers again, but not for the exterior world, but for inside New York, with a very competitive real state market, they need to satand out. Also, having an apartment in one of those supertalls, is a signal of status. For Hudson Yards, they needed a signature tower, to put that place in the map of New York. One Vanderbilt is also one of that towers that is built with the intention of having a premier place in the skyline.

I think in big part this boom became possible by advances in materials and software. Previously the cost of designing anything but plain boxes was expensive, sometimes prohibitively so.

Every tower in Shanghai and Dubai is an ego project that actually means the overall skyline suffers due to the lack of communication between buildings. The skylines of those cities are a jangled mess while New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Sydney and Hong Kong the skyline is a more cohesive whole and is greater than the sum of its parts.

Shanghai and Dubai forgot to build the "Base" of the skyline and the whole profile of those cities suffers because of it.

Wait until the steel is erected to the first rentable floor, then you will have a better idea of what type or type(s) of structural system(s) are used, also a good sign for encasement in concrete are sheer pins welded to the steel, in the web of the beam, and the beam flange, I have seen beams and columns with them on this but only below grade, and the use of diagonal steel or truss braces, will reduce the size of the steel throughout the structure, there is a view channel on one side of the tower, (i think the south face) that the structure may have to dance around, there is not enough steel in place at this point, for me to determine what the structural system is yet, there are many types of systems, and more so today, these systems are combined, using aspects of several types in one structure, this phase of construction, or what i call ''coming out of the ground'' is my favorite, and closer examination of the photo indicates alot of what can be seen, will be encased in concrete,

Is that the same as saying the encasement will be structural in the same way that concrete poured into forms with reinforcing is structural, or will encasing steel columns with concrete be for other reasons?

I'm no engineer, but simply encasing a column in a concrete skin can't add any structural support to it, surely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TICONLA1

...and closer examination of the photo indicates alot of what can be seen, will be encased in concrete,

__________________"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke